DESSALERNOS
v.
SAVORETTI, DISTRICT DIRECTOR, IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to have his application for suspension of deportation considered under § 244(a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.
The parties stipulated that the sole question was whether the petitioner was entitled to consideration for suspension of deportation under a specific …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Exceptional And Extremely Unusual Hardship cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam. It was stipulated by the parties in the District Court that the sole question for decision is whether petitioner is entitled to have his application for suspension of deportation considered under § 244 (a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (66 Stat. 163, 214; 8 U.
S. C. § 1254 (a)(1)).
We hold that petitioner is so entitled. The judgment of the Court of Appeals (244 F. 2d 178) is therefore vacated and the cause is remanded to the District Court with directions to enter an appropriate judgment declaring that petitioner is entitled to have his application for suspension of deportation considered by the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service under § 244 (a)(1).
So or fared. Mr. Justice Harlan, whom Mr. Justice Clark joins, would dismiss the writ for lack of jurisdiction. In his view the record fails to disclose a justiciable case or controversy because (1) the undisturbed administrative finding that petitioner “does not meet the requirement that his deportation [would] result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to himself,” establishes that petitioner is not entitled to suspension of deportation under either subdivision (a)(1) or (a)(5) of § 244 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952; and (2) the parties’ stipulation in the District Court is ineffective to confer jurisdiction on this Court to decide the question sought to be presented. See Swift & Co. v. Hocking Valley R. Co., 243 U. S. 281, 289; Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U. S. 227, 240-241. In holding on this record that subdivision (a)(1) governs petitioner’s case the Court has, in his view, rendered what in effect is an advisory opinion. Mr. Justice Frankfurter would join Mr. Justice Harlan if he read the record to be as clear as the latter finds it to be. Being in sufficient doubt about the scope and meaning of the stipulation, he joins the Court’s opinion. This leaves open, on the remand, the administrative determination of the issues under §244 (a)(1).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wong Wing Hang v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 360 F.2d 715 (2d Cir. 1966)…ization Service, 375 U.S. 217, 228-229 & n. 15, 84 S.Ct. 306, 11 L.Ed.2d 281 (1963), or that a determination of ineligibility is subject to judicial scrutiny for proper application of the conditions prescribed in § 244. See Dessalernos v. Savoretti, 356 U.S. 269, 78 S.Ct. 690, 2 L.Ed.2d 751 (1958); Wadman v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 329 F. 2d 812 (9 Cir. 1964); Gagliano v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 353 F. 2d 922 (2 Cir. 1965). We can narrow the problem further by accepting tha…
-
Jagdish Rai Chadha v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 634 F.2d 408 (9th Cir. 1980)…ice, 375 U.S. 217, 228-229 & n.15 [84 S.Ct. 306, 313 & n.15, 11 L.Ed.2d 281] (1963), or that a determination of ineligibility is subject to judicial scrutiny for proper application of the conditions prescribed in § 244. See Dessalernos v. Savoretti, 356 U.S. 269 [78 S.Ct. 690, 2 L.Ed.2d 751] (1958); Wadman v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 329 F. 2d 812 (9 Cir. 1964); Gagliano v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 353 F. 2d 922 (2 Cir. 1965). We can [*429] narrow the problem further by accepti…
-
Milutin Obrenovic v. Alva L. Pilliod, 282 F.2d 874 (7th Cir. 1960)…ted States ex rel. Dolonz v. Shaughnessy, 2 Cir., 1953, 206 E.2d 392, 394-395. For similar procedure under another section, see Jay v. Boyd, 1956, 351 U.S. 345, 352-361, 76 S. Ct. 919, 100 L.Ed. 1242. . Dessalernos v. Savoretti, 1958, 356 U.S. 269, 78 S.Ct. 690, 2 L.Ed.2d 751; United States ex rel. Accardi v. Shaughnessy, 1954, 347 U.S. 260, 74 S.Ct. 499, 98 L.Ed. 681. . Cf. Section 10(c) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.A. § 1009.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 (U.S. 1937)
- Swift & Co. v. Hocking Valley Ry. Co., 243 U.S. 281 (U.S. 1917)
- Gerys Dessalernos v. Savoretti, 244 F.2d 178 (5th Cir. 1957)